***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** WONDER WOMAN 1984 SPOILERS THREAD ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** ***DID WE MENTION SPOILERS?????***

[Menor the Destroyer]

4 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

Opening scene with little Diana is the plot...you can't cheat your way to happiness...you can't lie to yourself about your achievements/happiness/etc.  You need to work yourself to get to where you want in life...

 

Now, the opening mall scene was a throw away cute scene, that, I'll agree...but it was a "where's Diana and why don't folks know" thing...thus, wrecking the cameras, asking kids to stay quiet, etc...

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you could remove the opening scene and there would be no real difference in understanding of the film. The competition is basically just a metaphor to illustrate the film's theme. I'm not saying it's wrong to have an opening scene like that, but framing the film in that way imo makes it more annoying when the theme is muddled. The mall stuff was somewhat plot-related because it gives the viewer information of what Diana has been doing since the end of the first film.

Edited December 30, 2020 by Menor

[lorddemaxus]

13 minutes ago, Menor said:

What I mean is with the monologues about truth and stuff like that. Also the opening scene having no relation to the plot and only existing for a metaphorical purpose. You didn't see that in a movie like Aquaman, for example. 

Aquaman is a perfect example of a movie that forgets it's themes half-way through. It sets up themes about how people are destroying oceans and the environment but it just forgets it half-way through and just focuses on cool explosions. Most big superhero movies from the last 12 years I can think of that push for larger themes (The Dark Knight, Civil War, Captain Marvel, the first Wonder Woman, Black Panther are some big ones that come to my mind) are a confused mess and contradict themselves in how they handle them. 

Edited December 30, 2020 by lorddemaxus

[Menor the Destroyer]

6 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Aquaman is a perfect example of a movie that forgets it's themes half-way through. It sets up themes about how people are destroying oceans and the environment but it just forgets it half-way through and just focuses on cool explosions. Most big superhero movies from the last 12 years I can think of that push for larger themes (The Dark Knight, Civil War, Captain Marvel, the first Wonder Woman, Black Panther are some big ones that come to my mind) are a confused mess and contradict themselves in how they handle them. 

I don't think that was a real theme of Aquaman, that was just the villain's motivation (I felt the overall theme was more related to what kind of person is deserving of power). There are inconsistencies (especially with Civil War and the first Wonder Woman) in how each of those films handle their larger themes, but I think all were still better executed than WW84. Black Panther, for example, makes a pretty coherent statement about the duty of nations which is far more convincing and effective than anything WW84 has to say. 

[Knights of Ren]

As well as setting the overall theme of the movie...

Edited December 30, 2020 by Knights of Ren

[WittyUsername]

12 minutes ago, Menor said:

I don't think that was a real theme of Aquaman, that was just the villain's motivation (I felt the overall theme was more related to what kind of person is deserving of power). There are inconsistencies (especially with Civil War and the first Wonder Woman) in how each of those films handle their larger themes, but I think all were still better executed than WW84. Black Panther, for example, makes a pretty coherent statement about the duty of nations which is far more convincing and effective than anything WW84 has to say. 

Humans polluting the ocean is implied to just be an excuse on Orm’s part. The movie suggests that the real reason Orm despises the surface world is because he blames it for taking his mother away from him. The fact that he agrees to surrender after learning that she’s alive seems to support that idea. 

[lorddemaxus]

52 minutes ago, Menor said:

I don't think that was a real theme of Aquaman, that was just the villain's motivation (I felt the overall theme was more related to what kind of person is deserving of power). There are inconsistencies (especially with Civil War and the first Wonder Woman) in how each of those films handle their larger themes, but I think all were still better executed than WW84. Black Panther, for example, makes a pretty coherent statement about the duty of nations which is far more convincing and effective than anything WW84 has to say. 

Anything that's part of the text of a film (like the villain motivation) plays into the themes of a movie. And Black Panther gets muddled because of the inclusion of a CIA agent as a good guy and ally to the Wakandian people while portraying a Black revolutionary as the bad guy (TDKR suffers from a similar problem too) really muddles any of its themes about black liberation, colonisation and the impacts of imperialism on African nations and it never really fully grasps its ideas about isolationism vs interventionism. The movie works pretty well on a very broad level, but like with every other superhero movie, breaking it down shows some problems. 

 

Edit: To be clear, I personally don't think they're big problems with that film. It's just that I think it's another superhero film like my other examples that aren't completely coherent thematically. I think we're way off topic now though so I'll stop.

Edited December 30, 2020 by lorddemaxus

[dudalb]

12 hours ago, WandaLegion said:

Using a monkey’s paw is a poor way to try to get their message across imo, because in real life unexpected good things don’t always come with a hidden price. Themes were a totally whiff for me. Really tried to hammer home “something something truth,” but like... the problem with the wishes was the cost, not that the benefits weren’t real, because they were. It’s not even a McGuffin that made any sense for a truth vs deception Aesop.

The whole point of the original "THe Monkey's Paw" short story is that every wish you make is booby trapped;no good can come of using the Paw;sort of like the One RIng in LOTR you cannot use it for good,.

[dudalb]

BTW if you want to read the original's "Monkey's Paw short story:

 

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12122

[John Marston]

People say this movie is meant to be similar in tone  to Richard Donner’s Superman

 

 

more like  Superman 3 and 4

[Macleod]

On 12/31/2020 at 12:19 PM, John Marston said:

People say this movie is meant to be similar in tone  to Richard Donner’s Superman

 

 

more like  Superman 3 and 4

Jenkins clearly wanted to make a "Superman II" here -- More honesty about the hero's love life, vulnerability exposed with the loss of powers due to a choice by the hero to devote themselves entirely to their love interest, new threats that match and nearly exceed the hero's abilities.  But yes, it unfortunately ends up as more of a Superman III -- morally dubious character choices, villains with no real heft that are riffs on other greater villains, the hero corrupting their own personal history living in humanity (returning to Smallville, Lana while "evil") through manipulated choices of the villain, and awful, already dated "comedy" based in its period that falls flat.  

 

The charm of Reeve and Kidder in Donner's Superman and Lester's Superman II was equally wonderful, but ultimately worked because of great stories.  Despite having the same two leads, Superman III failed because it lacked a 100% meaningful concept and story.  Superman IV...is another matter, but I almost give more credit to IV than III, because at least Reeve was attempting to do something interesting with that one...and it got corrupted during production/post.

 

What the hell happened here??  WW84 is so disappointing.  This movie wasn't plagued by a change in directors or behind the scenes turmoil, as far as we know.  And yet it feels like it was.  At its core are some rather brilliant ideas about ideology, the fragileness of truth, the ideas of wishmaking and wish fulfillment in superhero narratives, how easily we would annihilate ourselves if we were truly given everything we want -- but as with everything, it's not the kind of story they are trying to tell here -- it's how they tell it.  The movie is, astoundingly, for a film of its budget and resources, plagued by simple production and aesthetic issues that should have been caught -- such as Diana "whispering" her final monologue to Max from across the room as epic wind is blowing and Max is screaming out.  How could he hear her?  Why would he even listen?  How can she be "seen" by everyone else if the cameras are destroyed?  How did she gain the ability to "fly" yet still need the armour/still not have all of her powers?  The audience also could have really used a flashback/appearance of the actual "god" that Diana refers to as the origin-point of the stone -- it would give the audience some kind of relatability similar to the wonderful "bedtime story" told by Hippolyta in the first movie.  This is FILM, here -- images should at least equally tell the story, not just some quick-exposition.  

 

The White House conflict between Diana and Barbara is far more interesting than the "same-old" CG fight scene (that lasts just four minutes) at the end.  But it's all muddled in both message and execution.  

 

So many other questions and issues here; all mentioned already in this forum -- I pretty much agree with the issues with bringing Steve's character back -- why not just "whiff" him into existence again?  Who "decides" what body he was placed in?  Why did that guy not even get a character name???  

 

...Never thought this movie would continue to end 2020 on a sour note.  What a drag.  This film should have been called: "The Mysterious Adventures of Max Lord, featuring Wonder Woman."  

 

What I did absolutely love, with no apologies, are the opening scene, the mall scene, Diana flying, and Zimmer's complete score -- beautiful stuff.  But both of those first two scenes could have been "bonus" scenes or indeed released sometime before the film's release as "prologues" or mini-adventures to tide the audience over, losing little of consequence from being excised from the main picture.  

 

Was the nighttime footage of Diana actually lassoing lightning bolts, seen in the trailers, deleted?  I don't think it's in the film, right?  When she begins to fly in the clouds, it's daylight...

 

I agree that they should let Steve go for the third film.  They tried recapturing the magic, and while the chemistry is great, the problems with what and how they accomplished it created more controversy and disappointment.  Diana needs to "move on" in the third film.  

Edited January 6, 2021 by Macleod